NASA

More calls for commercialization

Several outlets reported yesterday that the Augustine committee was delaying the completion of its final report, originally planned for the end of August. That’s not surprising if you have been following the updates posted by the committee (officially the Review of US Human Space Flight Plans committee) on its web site: early last week it noted that the committee was performing some additional “parametric performance calculations” that would delay the final release. However, the conclusions, including its suggested options, remain unchanged from what the committee discussed in its final public hearing on August 12th and briefed to the White House two days later. Moreover, the White House will also be getting within the next or so a draft executive summary of the final report.

The fact that commercial options for cargo and/or crew transportation to low Earth orbit factored heavily in many of those options got some attention in the days and weeks since that final public hearing, from The Wall Street Journal to Florida Today. Today the Washington Post endorsed greater commercialization as part of an editorial on NASA’s human spaceflight program. The editorial is somewhat critical of NASA’s current plans, saying that now’s the time “to take a step back to assess the right role for a manned space program that requires billions of dollars annually — and for what?” Concerned that “truly ground-breaking” (and robotic) programs might be threatened by the needs to maintain the ISS and move beyond LEO, it argues that one solution is for NASA to turn over cargo and crew transportation to the ISS to the private sector, which presumably can do this for less than what NASA would spend itself. Its conclusion:

It’s time to boldly go where no man has gone before. That means opening space to the kind of private-sector competition that revolutionized cyberspace and making sure the next human exploratory efforts are based on real scientific need.

33 comments to More calls for commercialization

  • Annon

    One big difference between cyberspace and outer space. Any high school kid with a bit of spare time could build a website and make money. So you had real competition for new ideas. But in space, unless you have an Angel with a millions of dollar to gamble, you are not going to go beyond view graphs. So you are not going to get any market based competition when only one company has the money to bid on a contract.

    And then you also have the problem of track records. Let NASA give a hundred million or so to a new space company with no track record and just watch what happens if it fails and Congress holds Congressional hearings on it. I could just see a grand standing Senator pointing their finger at the NASA administrator and saying “You mean you actually gave $100 million to a company to provide launch services even though they had never built a rocket and none of the management had engineering degrees…” And if you think Columbia/Challenger sparked an outcry, just wait until a similar accident happens with a commercial capsule carrying NASA astronauts.

    This is why at best you will get is a new set of government contractors using new terms to do the same old job. And a new layer of costs.

  • And then you also have the problem of track records. Let NASA give a hundred million or so to a new space company with no track record and just watch what happens if it fails and Congress holds Congressional hearings on it.?

    Why would NASA “give a hundred million or so to a new company with no track record”? That’s not how COTS works, and has been working. The money is only earned after milestones are achieved. Unlike a cost-plus contract, any losses are cut early, as in the case of RpK.

    Just because you might be dumb enough to do it that way doesn’t mean that it’s the only way to do it.

    On the other hand, we’ve spent billions on Ares so far, with nothing to show for it except viewgraphs and a Potemkin test vehicle. Where are the grandstanding Senators?

  • aremisasling

    Totally agreed, Rand. Thus far SpaceX actually has a better track record given that Ares has flow precisely 0 times. The Orbital vehicle is going to launch on rockets with a very well-respected legacy. And that’s assuming that those will be the only two players. I’m going to guess that if Bigelow follows through with Orion Lite that they’ll get in the game. They want it for Bigelow purposes, but ISS resupply is a good way to make a buck in the mean time. It’s an odd situation in that it would be competing with it’s sister craft, the standard Orion, and will be built as a collaboration with LockMart. It’s a strange conflict of interest situation, but that’s pretty much the history of space vehicle manufacturing thus far, anyway.

    Aremis

  • Annon

    Excuse me. I forget the long and successful track record of RpK in building an operating launch vehicles. And yes I guess NASA only threw away $32 million on them, not a full hundred. But the key point stands.

    As for Ares I. It may have flown zero times so far, but the SRBs it is based on have quite a few flights to their credit. Not to mention that ATK has quite a track record in solid rockets… Its a joke to compare SpaceX to them with a 40% success rate for Falcon I and no launch yet of Falcon 9.

  • Rocket Stuff

    Let NASA give a hundred million or so to a new space company with no track record and just watch what happens if it fails and Congress holds Congressional hearings on it. I could just see a grand standing Senator pointing their finger at the NASA administrator and saying “You mean you actually gave $100 million to a company to provide launch services even though they had never built a rocket and none of the management had engineering degrees…”

    I guess Anonn missed the fact that one morning a couple of weeks ago, from 8:00 AM to Noon, CxP spent the entire $100 million dollars that was stolen from the Recovery Act Stimulus funds earmarked for Commercial Crew, by a Mr. Shelby the esteemed senator from Alabama.

    In the real world that would be called extortion, and Mr. Shelby would be serving time in a federal prison, but in America it’s called diplomatic immunity, and his employees are free to claim the Nuremburg defense.

    The rational readers here are free to speculate how the additional $100 million would be invested along with the $50 million for Commercial Crew.

  • I forget the long and successful track record of RpK in building an operating launch vehicles.

    Nobody claimed they had one, so this comment is either ignorant if serious, or stupid if an attempt at sarcasm. And the $32M is still a lot less wasted money than on Ares, and there has only been one grandstanding senator, and he would have been grandstanding regardless, because his only motivation is to funnel billions of taxpayers’ dollars to be wasted in Huntsville.

    As for Ares I. It may have flown zero times so far, but the SRBs it is based on have quite a few flights to their credit. Not to mention that ATK has quite a track record in solid rockets… Its a joke to compare SpaceX to them with a 40% success rate for Falcon I and no launch yet of Falcon 9.

    Yes, it is a joke, because it’s “40% success rate” occurred in actual development flight test, and its most recent flights have a hundred percent success rate, and Falcon 9 is being assembled at the Cape for flight this year. Meanwhile, the new SRB that Ares will be based on had to scrub a test last week. Not to mention that Ares 1 has spent several billion dollars for its viewgraphs and animations and Potemkin rocket test, while SpaceX has achieved its success for a tiny fraction of that amount. We could have a lot of failed efforts like that, with a couple successes, and still be money ahead of the NASA way.

  • Also, this ignorance:

    “You mean you actually gave $100 million to a company to provide launch services even though they had never built a rocket and none of the management had engineering degrees…”

    What company has “…none of the management with engineering degrees”? Who has proposed to throw a hundred million dollars at it, sight unseen? From what dysfunctional planet are these strange dispatches being posted?

  • common sense

    Sometimes I feel very sorry for the HSF at NASA when I see some of the comments here and elsewhere.

    Make sure you read this about management and their technical degrees and experience… http://spacex.com/company.php

    Then again I don’t think for one minute it’ll change the opinion of someone who keeps associating COTS with RpK even though RpK is not a COTS contractor.

    As to the solid rockets mumbo-jumbo: Any idea what it takes to abort from a failing solid rocket? Any? No I mean really any idea?

    “From what dysfunctional planet are these strange dispatches being posted?”

    The well know Obliviona circling around the Milky-Huntsville-Way…

  • Ferris Valyn

    NASP/X-30, SLI, OSP, X-33, X-34…

    I am sorry, we were talking about NASA’s successful record, weren’t we?

  • Well, to be fair, NASP was a team fail with the Air Force.

  • Annon

    So RpK NEVER had a COTS contract? I guess the RpK COTS failure has already been written out of the official history of New Space. Has fast RpK has gone from being the darling of new space to being tossed under the bus and forgotten.

    It would be interesting if the Ares I test next month is successful while the Falcon 9 fails. But that is also why the new space movement is going to move heaven and earth to stop the Ares I test. Can’t take the risk that reality might shatter the urban myths of new space. I notice the new space blogsphere is already spinning the Ares I test as being meaningless just in case it does succeed

    As for the laundry list. How many of those projects were fully funded? None. They were all started, then had money cut, often via the extensive lobbying of the new space community doing its best to destroy any competition. Then new space adds them to the list of NASA failures to reinforce its arguments about the “incompetence” of NASA engineers.

    Those are the same negative tactics the environment movement has used for years – keeping nuclear waste storage delayed for decades by lawsuits and then arguing you can’t build new nuclear power plants because there is no place to put the waste…

    And now you are counting even test fires as aborts to make the case against the Ares I. And how many times did Elon reschedule even his successful launch attempts? Or engine tests? Or wait, those don’t count because they are new space.

    Yes, a double standard indeed.

    Also SpaceX shows my original point. New space is not cyberspace. You can’t call it an open competitive market when the only companies involved are funded by billionaires. The number of them are very limited if you haven’t noticed.

    COTS -D is a good idea, as a limited experiment. Its always good to encourage new government contractors. But you need to also make sure you have something to depend on if it fails instead of putting all your eggs in an untested basket. And make sure the companies selected are qualified by experience and capabilities to fulfill the contract when they get it.

  • So RpK NEVER had a COTS contract?

    No one said that.

    I guess the RpK COTS failure has already been written out of the official history of New Space.

    Ummmm…no.

    How much ignorance do you plan to display here?

    Has fast RpK has gone from being the darling of new space to being tossed under the bus and forgotten.

    No, despite your ungrammatical and ignorant posts, we are well aware of it, which is why we are able to shoot down your ungrammatical and ignorant posts about it.

    It would be interesting if the Ares I test next month is successful while the Falcon 9 fails.

    It wouldn’t actually mean much, since Falcon 9 would be a real launch vehicle, in its development, and the Ares 1-X test has little to do with the actual system.

    How many of those projects were fully funded? None. They were all started, then had money cut, often via the extensive lobbying of the new space community doing its best to destroy any competition. Then new space adds them to the list of NASA failures to reinforce its arguments about the “incompetence” of NASA engineers.

    They were all fully funded up to the point that it became quite clear that no amount of money poured into them would be successful, just like Ares.

    And you continue to ignore the astronomical disparity in costs, and the fact that you can’t support your insanity about management at New Space companies not having engineering degrees.

    But please, continue to beclown yourself here.

  • Rocket Stuff

    It would be interesting if the Ares I test next month is successful

    It’s not an Ares I test next month. You knew that, right?

    But that is also why the new space movement is going to move heaven and earth to stop the Ares I test.

    It’s not an Ares I test. You knew that, right?

    But you need to also make sure you have something to depend on if it fails instead of putting all your eggs in an untested basket.

    I guess that’s why we have two EELVs, two COTS awards, and they are talking in terms of multiple competing Commercial Crew awards.

  • Annon

    Good SPIN on the October flight of the Ares I-X, but simply not true.

    http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/090823future/

    Ares managers say October test flight should go on
    BY STEPHEN CLARK
    SPACEFLIGHT NOW
    Posted: August 23, 2009

    Managers in charge of an October flight test of NASA’s new Ares rocket defended the merits of the $350 million launch Sunday, telling reporters the demo provides valuable experience for engineers, no matter what booster the agency uses to replace the retiring space shuttle.

    “We have a very high confidence level that Ares 1-X is germane to NASA, period,” said Bob Ess, the flight’s mission manager. “No caveats.”

    Or are you saying NASA is lying about the Ares 1-X test flight?

    Next you are going to claim the Shuttle and Apollo program were also failures. You got to love the way the new space propaganda machine works to spins black into white in the blog sphere.

  • Major Tom

    “As for Ares I. It may have flown zero times so far, but the SRBs it is based on have quite a few flights to their credit.”

    No, they don’t. A five-segment SRB has never flown.

    “Not to mention that ATK has quite a track record in solid rockets…”

    The solid rocket is only the first stage in a multi-stage human space transportation system. And ATK’s (or anyone else’s) experience means diddly squat if that first-stage threatens to shake the second-stage and capsule apart.

    “Its a joke to compare SpaceX to them with a 40% success rate for Falcon I and no launch yet of Falcon 9.”

    It is a joke to make that comparison. ATK has never built or operated a complete space launch system. Only some of the solid rockets that go into space launch systems.

    We shouldn’t compare Goodyear to Ford. They don’t do the same thing. Same goes for ATK and Space-X.

    FWIW…

  • Annon

    A history of Thiokol, aka ATK

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiokol

    ATK has been in the rocket business since the 1940’s working at the very start with JPL. They built their first solid fuel missile, called the Falcon BTW, in 1949, as well as the Nike-Zeus. And the thousands of solid fuel motors for the Minuteman, Peacekeeper, Pershing, Poseidon, etc. They have been working with NASA since NASA was created the solid rockets used for de-orbiting Mercury, Gemini, etc.

    No, they have not built a complete space system yet, but then McDonnell didn’t build a capsule before Mercury. But when NASA needed a capsule they didn’t go to a start-up, they went with a company with a track record of building innovative aerospace products.

    So who do you bet on? A company that has been delivering a variety of rocket systems for 60 years and basically defined the idea of a large solid fuel rocket? Or a company still learning the ropes of building aerospace systems?

    Its more like Goodyear versus Delorean Motors…

  • A company that has been delivering a variety of rocket systems for 60 years and basically defined the idea of a large solid fuel rocket? Or a company still learning the ropes of building aerospace systems?

    I bet on the company that has developed a (now reliable) new launch vehicle from scratch at a tiny fraction of the cost that the other company does things. At least if it’s my money. But I guess you don’t mind wasting other people’s money.

  • Or are you saying NASA is lying about the Ares 1-X test flight?

    Yes. Or at least stretching the truth.

    Next you are going to claim the Shuttle and Apollo program were also failures.

    Apollo was a success, but Shuttle was a failure in terms of its goal of routine, often, affordable, safe space flight.

  • Rocket Stuff

    So who do you bet on?

    I find scientific methods and engineering best practices to be far more effective. But if betting works for you, go for it. You’ve got perchlorate on the brain, and are obsessed with weaponry like any good propagandized American should be.

    You know, Annon, you just aren’t ‘lucid’. Is your first name John by chance?

  • Major Tom

    “No, they [ATK] have not built a complete space system yet, but then McDonnell didn’t build a capsule before Mercury”

    Not true. The U.S. developed space return capsules under various, classified, space-based reconnaissance programs before Mercury. See the CIA’s declassified Corona program, for example.

    And even if true, it would be a flawed analogy. If no capsules had been developed prior to Mercury, then NASA would have no choice but to go with an untried contractor (McDonnell or otherwise). But that’s not the situation today, when NASA has lots of choices after 40 years of aerospace industry development.

    NASA had a choice between trying to procure a space transportation system based an untried solid rocket motor (5-segment SRB) in a launch configuration it was never designed for (single stick) versus trying to procure services on existing launch vehicles (EELVs) or launch vehicles under development built around proven rocket motors (Falcon).

    Not a knock against ATK or solid rocket motors, but as we’ve seen, the former path had a lot more uncertainty and risk than the latter paths. Unlike the Apollo era, NASA doesn’t have to work hard (or stupid) and invent (or reinvent) almost every system or capability when trying to field a new human space transportation capability. Instead, NASA can work easy (and smart) and leverage existing launch systems and capabilities in operation or development.

    “So who do you bet on? A company that has been delivering a variety of rocket systems for 60 years and basically defined the idea of a large solid fuel rocket?”

    Again, this experience is meaningless for the application in question if that large, first-stage, solid-fuel rocket threatens the performance of the launch system’s upper stage and capsule. Or if it makes the launch system too hard, complex, and expensive to develop. The point of the whole exercise is to procure a capable, affordable, human LEO transport system — not to develop a new solid rocket motor. If the solid rocket motor gets in the way and prevents the launch system as a whole from doing its job, then we have to dump that solid rocket motor subsystem, no matter how much experience its maker has in building solid rocket motors.

    “Or a company still learning the ropes of building aerospace systems?”

    Again, Space-X has more experience, both in terms of its hires and in terms of its actual practice, than ATK in building and operating launch systems, not just pieces of launch systems. Space-X has multiple launches and launch system developments under its belt, while ATK has zero experience in this area.

    “Its more like Goodyear versus Delorean Motors…”

    Another flawed analogy. DeLorean went bankrupt due to lack of demand for their product. There doesn’t appear to be any lack of demand for Space-X’s product.

    FWIW…

  • Loki

    Ares 1-X is NOT a worthwhile test because there are far too many differences between it and a “real” Ares-1

    LAS “mass simulator” (in other words a dummy), Orion mass simulator, 2nd stage mass simulator, and last but not least a 4-segment SRB from the shuttle with a dummy fifth stage. In fact not only is the SRB a 4 segment instead of a 5 segment, it doesn’t even have the same core shape. The shuttle’s SRBs have an “11 fin” core and Ares-1 will use a 12 fin core shape. In solid rockets the core shape means everything. Different core = different surface area at ignition = different thrust & different burn profile = completely different performance. On top of all that they aren’t even using the same design for the LAS “shroud” panels that cover the Orion CM that the real thing will use, so it’s not even aerodynamically the same either.

    Bottom line – as planned Ares-1X is pointless. Maybe if they had at least built a real LAS for it then they could maybe achieve an ascent abort test at the same time, maybe. Or delay the test a few more months to 1 year and use a real Ares-1 5 segment SRB 1st stage, or perhaps even both (although in the test world you usually don’t want to combine too many test objectives into a single test just in case something goes wrong and you fail to achieve all those objectives).

    BTW, I’m an aerospace engineer working on the Orion program, so it’s not that I’m all about Spacex or New Space in general. Truth be told I could care less what happens with LEO as long as they don’t cancel Orion and/ or scrap the beyond LEO portion of the VSE. I think it’s past time for us to move beyond LEO and actually become a “space faring” people, just as our ancestors centuries ago decided to become sea faring people. If New Space can achieve our objectives in LEO and do it for cheaper and create a whole new commercial market at the same time, more power to them. There will be failures along the way, just as there were in internet startups and commercial aviation, but maybe it’s time we let them have a shot at it.

  • Loki

    One other thought:
    Ares-1 performance wise is actually pretty much the same as the Delta 4 heavy and the Atlas 5 heavy (Atlas 5 heavy hasn’t had it’s design completed so it’s still somewhat theoretical). The only reason why they are going with the Ares-1 design is to “protect the [SRB] industrial base” by Mike Griffin’s own words. When someone talks about protecting a certain industrial base, whatever that is, they’re talking about protecting their pet contractors, nothing more. There’s also been a lot of talk in the blogoshpere about Direct being better because it saves more KSC shuttle jobs. Again, we’re talking about essentially turning NASA into a welfare program for certain contractors.

    Again, how we reach LEO is not as important as pushing beyond LEO (which means restoring funding for Ares-5 and Altair). If we can save money by going with a New Space company, or ULA’s EELV heavies, or something else and put that money saved toward developing Ares-5, Altair, and other exploration systems sooner then that’s great.

  • aremisasling

    “You got to love the way the new space propaganda machine works to spins black into white in the blog sphere.”

    Up until SpaceX and Bigelow, the vast majority of the New Space programs out there have been essentially garage workshop type projects. There have been very few New Space companies that ever received any kind of funding. SpaceX and Bigelow got where they are because they actually had the funding based mostly on the founders own millions to sustain themselves long enough to catch attention. So how is it that a fledgling industry running largely on its own dime until very recently was able to muster the chutspa to tank a series of government programs? How does a company that in most cases can’t even muster the PR to gain investors bring down well-known and congressionally supported vehicles?

    Case in point, RpK. Why did RpK fail? I don’t recall any issues being raised with either their experience or their designs. They failed because of lack of funds. How did that happen if they were well-funded enough to grease congressional palms or leaflet the blogosphere?

    Furthermore, last I checked both of Bigelow’s main projects are based on NASA technology developed, underfunded, and scrapped long before Bigelow was anything other than a hotel owner.

    Frankly, the absolute number 1 reason why I support private space as much as I do is because NASA can’t seem to get a vehicle off the ground without faltering on funding, scope creep, massive gaps in human spaceflight, or spruce goose flops. Saturn, Mercury, STS, and others have been great contributions to spaceflight, but the number of times we’ve attempted, and failed, to replace STS in a timely and affordable fashion casts a dark shadow over my perceptions of NASA in recent years. I remember getting excited about all the new things we were going to see out of NASA in the early 90’s. Spaceplanes, rockets, inflatable station modules, revolutionary propulsion systems, you name it.

    And we’ve seen almost none of it beyond a few engineering test models. And now, again, we have constellation which promises tremendous performance and seems almost predestined to stay grounded. Yeah, it’s faltering in large part due to funding. But so is the rest of NASA. And if you somehow think that underfunding NASA programs, which provide a nice customer base for these companies, is somehow a good thing for private space, you’re nuts.

    Aremis

  • we’re talking about essentially turning NASA into a welfare program for certain contractors.

    That horse left the barn decades ago.

  • aremisasling

    “You mean you actually gave $100 million to a company to provide launch services even though they had never built a rocket and none of the management had engineering degrees…”

    Speaking to this one, how often do you see companies where the executive management has anything other than a management degree? In my company, a healthcare company, the CEO is a doctor. But he is a rarity in my industry and I garauntee you he hasn’t written prescription in over a decade, certainly not under my company’s roof. Our partner organization is run by the Catholic church. While I have no complaints in that regards, I hardly imagine the Sisters of St. Mary are emminently qualified to distribute advanced medical care. Heck, even when I worked in the restaurant business we’d dread the days when the boss decided to have a turn behind the line. We’d spend the rest of the night fixing the disasters he inflicted in an hour or two. That’s why they hire people who are qualified to do the job. So I’m not really sure what your point is here.

    An interesting counter to that, however, is that a lot of the people who are now working for SpaceX have long track records working for other companies or for NASA. The head of propulsion systems has worked developing exactly the sort of thing he’s building for SpaceX in both a professional and amateur capacity for decades. I think the above mentioned link to SpaceX’s executive resumes pretty much covers it. It’s not like a couple of desk jockeys with a spot welder decided to concoct a explosive tin can in their garage. You may have your doubts, and so do I. But don’t misportray Musk’s team as a bunch of unqualified hacks. RpK wasn’t either. Again, they succumbed to funding issues, not engineering issues. Your grandstanding senator would be far better off complaining that we threw 32 million at a company where no executives held a finance or marketing degree, and I’m pretty sure you’d be wrong on that account as well.

    And since you seem to be keen on pointing out forgotten COTS competitors, it’s funny that I haven’t heard much about Orbital in your comments. Just too inconvenient to your argument that ATK is part of the Orbital team or that Orbital is thus far meeting milestones? Or is it their demonstrated track record in the industry that’s dropped them off your radar?

    I’m not super excited about Orbital as their project has heavy doses of Big Space on contract. It’s only a partial step forward in my mind. Nevertheless, the solution they offer gets cargo aboard the ISS faster and cheaper than Constellation, and does maintain some independance from NASA ownership of their vehicle.

    Aremis

  • common sense

    @Loki:

    As I said before I am not a fan of Ares-I-a/b/c-or-X. But I think there is some value for NASA to launch Ares-I-X in that they may be able to validate their models and org structures for developing/launching a launch vehicle, regardless of whether it is the final LV. Some of the said models may, or not, be valuable to the industry as well. And if nothing else the industry may end up hiring a lot of the people working Ares but I don’t know that.

    Yes indeed a real LAS firing test along with the Ares-I-X test would bring tremendous data that as far as I know does not exist today.

    So, to me, if NASA can make up a good case then they should launch. And then we move on to other things.

    Finally the “new-space” vs. NASA debate is not a real debate, it is entertained by people who want to see the whole thing fail in order to say “I-told-you-so”. I’d be curious to know how many of those ever worked for the HSF, be it commercial, NASA or contractor…

  • Loki

    @common sense
    It’s true that I may have been a little bit hasty in saying that Ares-1x is pointless. It does give them a chance to validate the processes for “stacking” an Ares 1 rocket, preping and launching it even though I don’t think they’re going to get a whole lot of valuable performance data out of it without using a “real” 1st stage. So as far as the usefullness of the test goes it’s not completely useless, I just think it would be better to either delay it until they have a 5 segment SRB available or combine with an ascent abort test (which is in the plan for later anyway, it’s known as AA-1 for Ascent Abort test 1). Also, NASA does already have it stacked in the VAB at KSC, so they might as well go ahead and light that candle anyway, just in case anyone thinks I’m for canceling the test, I’m not. I just think it was poorly planned.

    Also, unlike some other posters here, I’m not trying to frame the argument as a “New Space vs NASA” adversarial thing (in case anyone got the wrong impression). Just the opposite, I think the 2 can coexist. In fact the commercialization option the Augistine commision has been talking about is just that. Hand over Earth to LEO (i.e. ISS cargo and crew) objectives to commercial providers so that NASA can concentrate on beyond LEO exploration. If those commercial companies can really accomplish all of the required objectives for cheaper than NASA then why not? The only real question mark is safety, but NASA’s gotten plenty of astronauts killed themselves over the years. Commercial launchers would have to be even more safety minded because if the public believes that the Falcon 9, just for example, is unsafe then no one in their right mind would fork over a couple hundred thousand dollars for a trip up to a Bigelow orbiting “space hotel” (if that becomes a reality), nore would they go along with NASA forking over tax dollars to a company that they percieve is killing astronauts left and right.

  • common sense

    @Loki:

    “I don’t think they’re going to get a whole lot of valuable performance data out of it without using a “real” 1st stage.”

    There is lot of data to gain in terms of aerodynamics/aerothermal data and trajectory validation data, etc. Of course if it is all planned as I suggest, otherwise… If it only is a firecracker show off then it may be the most expensive ever that’d make the Chinese proud ;)

    “I’m not trying to frame the argument as a “New Space vs NASA” adversarial thing (in case anyone got the wrong impression).”

    No I did not mean to say you did, just to address it in general.

    “The only real question mark is safety”

    I don’t think it will stay a question. If any private space company wants to fly NASA astronauts they will have to comply with NASA requriements on safety, I cannot see it any other way (I am not going into the debate of Orion safety requirements changing with changing LV here though). On the other hand, if they want to fly their own private astronauts or if any other private entity wants to fly with them, then there’d probably be an FAA like set of requirements if it does not already exists like for commercial aviation.

    “no one in their right mind would fork over a couple hundred thousand dollars for a trip”

    I would not bet on that statement. Some people have expressed interests in 1-way trip to Mars. All they need is the cash… ;)

    “NASA forking over tax dollars to a company that they percieve is killing astronauts left and right”

    Hmmm, I think NASA is currently doing exactly that to Boeing and ATK. A bit over the top but your statement alo is a bit over the top… And BTW the same holds for LMT’s Orion…

  • Annon

    I wish new space could co-exist with the experience aerospace corporations. No, I am not going to use the term “old space” anymore. That term was created as part of the new space movement’s campaign to paint the experienced aerospace companies as outdated, over-the-hill and of no further value to America’s space program. The term “old space” is just part of the new space campaign to degrade the corporations that have actually taken American to the Moon and beyond.

    You see that on the posts here where the 60+ year record of success of ATK Thiokol is dismissed as irrelevant in comparison to a new space start-up that has exactly 5 launches to its credit, only one of which placed a satellite in orbit. But I guess in the new Obamathink of Washington experience and wisdom are viewed as negatives while inexperienced and freshness are seen as “change we can believe in”.

    You also see it in the claims made on posts here that NASA is misleading (i.e. lying) the public on the Ares 1-X launch. You also see the claim that the Shuttle, which demonstrated that humans could do productive work in orbit building structures, launching, repair and retrieving satellites, the Shuttle which has placed more astronauts into space than all the other world’s spacecraft combined, is a failure. (roll eyes…)

    The new space movement isn’t interested in co-existing with America’s current space program. They want to destroy it, turning NASA astronauts into no more the government funded space tourists. Sorry, that is not a space program.

    Look I have nothing against COTS-D. The new space companies need to gain experience somehow. But COTS-D shouldn’t be America’s only manned space program. That would be a mistake.

    We should also wait on COTS-D until we see if COTS is even a success. The first COTS launch has already slipped a number of times from 2008 to 2010. Yes, if it was one of the experienced aerospace companies you would see howls from new space on the Internet blogs, but since it’s a new space firm its only a normal part of development to have schedule slips… Really Congress would look pretty silly killing NASA’s human space flight program in favor if a COTS-D only program then having COTS fail and blow up in their face. The time for COTS-D is after COTS is successful and actually providing cargo service to ISS. But before that its just compounding a gamble with a new gamble.

    As for the infamous spaceflight gap, I would just keep the Shuttle flying as Sally Ride suggested. Then provide the funds to accelerate Orion. If Congress kills the funds for Ares I then downgrade Orion for launch on the Atlas V heavy.

    Anyway that is my two cents. But given this is a blog dominated by the new space movement I don’t except anyone to support it. Sadly the posters here have bought into the new space movement’s hype and merged it with the “change we can believe in” group think of Obama. Sad, but illustrative of the Internet world.

    In any case this blog has become too biased towards new space to be of much value anymore. Time spent here would be much better spent making sure Congress is informed on just what they would be gambling on if they kill human space flight at NASA in favor of “inexperienced” space companies. Time actually spent doing something productive to save America’s space program.

  • Gregory Clark

    @Annon

    While I tend to agree with some of your post, you kinda go off the rails there at the end (just my .02…)

    IMNSHO, most new space advocates have become frustrated with a NASA that, from their POV, CANNOT lead, WILL NOT follow, and DOES NOT get out of the way. This would tend to make just about anyone rather, …cranky, shall we say?

    I am as big a fan of the shuttle as anyone. That said, it is forty- to fifty-year-old technology at heart; riddled with design, construction, and operational compromises; and (again, IMNSHO) well past its’ due date. NASA has utterly failed to come up with a replacement. Time to send some seed money to someone else.

    On a personal side note, I would take what you say more seriously if you actually posted under your real name.

  • While I tend to agree with some of your post, you kinda go off the rails there at the end

    Only at the end?

    I would take what you say more seriously if you actually posted under your real name.

    But then he’d have to take personal responsibility for his ignorant nonsense. Don’t hold your breath.

  • Gregory Clark

    (Turning purple)

  • […] More calls for commercialization – Space Politics […]

Leave a Reply to Loki Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>